Merc’s Brown Endorsement Causes a Stir

Sunday’s San Jose Mercury News endorsement of Jerry Brown is getting a bit of traction, as might have been expected. The Brown campaign spread news of the endorsement today in an email blast headlined: “Meg’s Hometown Paper Backs Brown.”

The Merc endorsement was enthusiastic and strongly worded. It begins on a positive note: “Jerry Brown offers California exactly what it needs in its next governor: a mature politician who can get things done in Sacramento and who brings good ideas, strong principles and a reputation for telling the truth.”

But from there the piece shifts to focus on Whitman, and explain exactly why she is the wrong choice:

“It’s popular in some circles to say we need an outsider with business experience to run government. We tried that. It didn’t work.”

“[Whitman,] has demonstrated through her campaign a loose relationship with the truth, a poor understanding of government and a penchant for platitudes. Her carefully packaged positions offer pat solutions for problems whose depth and complexity clearly elude her. ... We’ve come to see that she utterly lacks the qualifications to be governor.”

The Brown camp noted that “Meg’s hometown paper didn’t mince words about her candidacy, arguing that she ... ‘can’t buy credibility’ through her ‘misleading ads’ and ‘herd of consultants.’”

The refreshingly blunt endorsement seems to take Whitman’s prevarications personally, ending with an anecdote:

“Perhaps the best ilustration of Whitman’s manipulation of facts and cluelessness about government is the anecdote she likes to tell about eBay’s building project in San Jose. It took 2 1/2 years to break ground, and she uses this as an example of government regulation run amok. But it was eBay’s decision to redesign the project that held things up, not San Jose, which fast-tracked the plan. When we brought this up to her, she shrugged and said it just shouldn’t have taken that long —as if the reason didn’t matter.”

Filed Under:

55 Comments

I thought it was a good, well written and reasoned endorsement when I read it in the Merc. I’m almost resigned to the fact that we’ll get the governor that we deserve (Jerry Brown) and not the governor we need (probably not Meg Whitman). I’m not impressed with the current nominees on the ballot for either party and think most of the slate is filled with party hacks and/or wealthy elites who are really probably out of touch.

Jerry Brown is as safe a bet as Gray Davis, a shoo-in for election if present trends continue, and likely to be an interesting one term governor.

I agree with Blair. We don’t have good choices for Gov. but Whitman is the worst of the two. She would do more damage than good. I doubt she’d wave her salary the way our present Gov. has, that’s for sure! Not after the BILLIONS she’s spent on this campaign.

I find the amount of money she’s spent to be disgusting. That money could have repaired roads, funded libraries, schools, pensions, and could have fed a small country!

He fixed the budget to make sure the government unions got “collective bargaining” and mammoth, unsustainable retirements.

He fixed the election rules to allow himself to run for Attorney General even though he didn’t meet the constitutional requirement.

He tried to fix the Prop 23 initiative by changing the ballot wording to favor the anti-Prop 23 interests.

He fixed the retirement system to give himself a triple dip retirement for all of his government service gigs.

He clearly intends to fix the term limit rules for governor by exempting himself from the two term limit.

> but we definitely don’t need a “business perspective” CEO-Governor.

We absolutely DO need a business perspective. We need someone at the top who actually knows where tax dollars come from, how to balance a budget, and how to fire useless slackers who aren’t providing value for the people of California who pay the bills.

“The limitations on the number of terms prescribed by
Section 2 of Article IV, Sections 2 and 11 of Article V, Section 2 of
Article IX, and Section 17 of Article XIII apply only to terms to
which persons are elected or appointed on or after November 6, 1990,
except that an incumbent Senator whose office is not on the ballot
for the general election on that date may serve only one additional
term. Those limitations shall not apply to any unexpired term to
which a person is elected or appointed if the remainder of the term
is less than half of the full term.”

Wasn’t that the measure where they tried to impose term limits on the federal offices from California (US Senate and House of Representatives)? If so, I know at least that part got thrown out in federal court.

As far as term limits go…I actually believe the solution is worse than the problem. Yeah, we’d still have Willie Brown as Assembly Speaker but we’d also not have special interests buying legislation and telling rookie assembly members and state senators how to vote (and actually writing the legislation that they carry on the floor).

So, let’s modify it both locally and state wide with a more moderate limit on public service rather than the strict limits. How about 12 years at each level (City Government, Assembly, State Senate, Executive Branch Office)?

BTW – Whatever happened to John Vasconcellos? He’d be a better Lt. Gov for Jerry Brown than Gavin Newsom who makes the ticket look like some situation comedy match up.

“But he IS the only living politician who lacks the common sense to grasp the message the voters were sending: TWO AND OUT!”

If they elect him to a third term, then it clearly won’t be the message they’re sending, now will it? In addition, who the Hell cares about some trivial populist canard like term limits, anyway? Term limits are a joke. We were better off before we had them. They appeal primarily to people with childish minds, who think it’d be fun to be mean to the bad ol’ politicians, by limiting their terms in office…without ever using their brains to the extent necessary to perceive that the weaker we make our legislators, the more powerful we make the lobbyists, public employees unions, etc. If we had to have March Fong Eu instead of Debra Bowen as Secretary of State, well, what difference would that really make?

People always say Schwarzenegger has done a poor job as Governor, but they never explain how. He’s just taking the blame for the fact we’re in a national recession. Its not like things would be any better (or even much different) had Cruz Bustamante or Phil Angelides gotten into office instead. And Gray Davis was worse than Schwarzenegger (Bustamante almost certainly would have been too). Schwarzenegger may have been a less than masterful Governor, but Davis was a blithering incompetent. He was only re-elected in 2002 because Simon was pro-Life…which is a pretty idiotic basis upon which to decide whom to cast one’s ballot for Governor of California. Even if Roe vs Wade got overturned tomorrow, abortion is NEVER going to be illegal in California. Every serious person knows that, but the California electorate contains a lot of people who don’t fall under the heading “serious person.”

Schwarzenegger is a great moderate Democrat governor in the same way that Bill Clinton was a great moderate Republican.

A lot actually can get done with divided government that forces brokering and compromise as well as pushing some populist issues that your own party wouldn’t vote for but the people at large support.

Do you really want one party rule and efficient state government? We already have an 111 page constitution and reams of laws where every legislator wants to add another statute to show they’ve made their mark. We’ve dumbed things down via administrative and legislative laws to the point that you can’t even light up a sparkler or ride a bicycle without a helmet or face stiff fines. Do you want more of that quickly with efficient one party rule in California like we have at the federal level?

Schwarzenegger was a political neophyte when he decided to use his celebrity status to vault into the Governor’s mansion. His instincts were correct, though, about what needed to be done and if the voters hadn’t been so stupid as to reject the 4 ballot initiatives:
-Limit the use of public employee union dues for political purposes.
-Cap State spending.
-Redraw Legislative districts.
-Restrict public school teacher tenure.
he presented to us in 2005 we’d be in a much shallower hole than the one in which we now find ourselves. But we did reject his reforms. He got the message loud and clear, did a 180, and began to govern the way that the largely liberal populace appeared to be telling him to govern.
We the people are wrong to blame our woes on our politicians. Their irrational and destructive ways only persist because we keep sending them the message that that’s exactly what we want.

I think the 2005 ballot propositions made a lot of sense and had broad electoral appeal.

Unfortunately, they were defeated, not on their merits, but by clever and sophisticated electioneering.

There are many, many intellectual propositions that people will generally agree to, but when they are reduced to a ballot initiative within the constraints of the initiative process they can be defeated by any number of sneaky and sinister strategems.

Consider, for example, that the Secretary of State gets to decide the ballot summary. In the case of Proposition 23, the wording was cooked to make it sound like the proposition was “taking away” a right.

Sneaky. Dishonest. Unethical. A finger on the scale of the election process.

Unfortunately, the convolulted and complex system of government in California gives the bad guys endless opporunities for mishchief and trickery to frustrate the interests and the will of the prople.

I don’t regard the defeat of the 2005 initiatives as a rejection by the voters; I take it only as a temporary setback and a round won by sophists who are particularly skilled in the jiujitsu of politics.

Give them that one. But recall The Terminator’s timeless words: “I’ll be back.”

The Mercury is a pretty weak paper (it used to be a lot better, 15-20+ years ago), but I agree with their editorial board’s endorsement here. Meg Whitman is one of the worst candidates the Republicans could have nominated, and Jerry Brown is probably the best candidate the Democrats could have nominated. I very seldom vote for any Democrats in partisan races anymore (splitting more-or-less evenly between Republicans, and various “third” parties, depending on the quality of the candidates in individual races), but I’m convinced Jerry Brown is a better bet for Governor. I’m not even sure why Meg Whitman wants to become Governor, but I suspect personal ambition & aggrandizement lies at the heart of it, while Jerry Brown seems genuinely motivated to work towards getting California out of the mess its presently in. I doubt he, or anyone else, will be particularly successful in that regard, alas, but if he’s elected, I think he will be as much an opponent of his fellow Democrats in the Legislature, as he will be towards the Republicans. Despite seeking office as a Democrat, I think he’s fundamentally pro-California, if you will, and understands that both major parties are part of the problem, whereas Meg Whitman would just effectively be the RNC’s agent in Sacramento. We need a Governor who’s willing to look beyond the stale dichotomy of liberal-versus-conservative, and seek out some compromise path based on competence, as opposed to ideology. And Brown seems far more inclined to go that route than does Whitman (who’s goal, I suspect, is to be elected the first woman Vice-President in 2012).

It lacks the subtleties & sophistication of your just-vote-for-anyone-with-an-“R”-next-to-their-name approach, admittedly, but I like it.

I’m one of the most right-wing people on this site, but if I’m unwilling to jump on the Meg Whitman bandwagon, you insult me. You might wish to refine your methods.

If the Republicans had nominated Tom McClintock or Richard Mountjoy for Governor, that’s who I’d be voting for. But Meg Whitman is just some cypher (I’m inclined to agree with the Brown staffer who recently referred to as “a whore”). Electing her would be a lot like leaving the office vacant. I was going to vote for Chellene Nightingale of the American Independent Party, but Whitman might actually win, and I’d just as soon help prevent that. Although if the Democrats had nominated Garamendi for Governor, I’d be voting for Nightingale. If they’d nominate Gavin Newsom for Governor, I’d be voting for Whitman. Its all relative.

Anyway, if you elect Meg Whitman, you basically just turn this state over to the Legislative Democrats, who will run circles around that She-Goblin from E-Bay. Whereas if you elect Jerry Brown, a guy whom Willie Brown loathed in the late 1970s & early 1980s, due to his relative fiscal conservatism, then you elect someone who will have the strength to tell the Legislative Democrats “No” once in a while. One might even call that a more conservative (or libertarian, if you prefer) outcome than putting Clueless Meg in the office, so she can be made a fool of by tomorrow’s answer to Don Perata.

> The problem with California government is the Assembly and Senate. I doubt either candidate can break the partisan, self-aggandizing gridlock.

This is not “the problem”, it is a consequence of a more subtle and sinister problem: GERRYMANDERING.

Politicians, DEM or REP, who are in “safe” districts, don’t consider themselves as working for “voters”; they believe they work for the invisible “fixers” in Sacramento who draw the districts and deal out a ration of drooling zombie voters who will mindlessly vote as they are told.

> The “revolution” needs to start at the legislative branch. Vote out everybody that’s in there now. They are all part of the problem.

I disagree. If you believe that “they are all part of the problem”, then give up because there is no solution. Only anarchy.

Short of anarchy, the solution is DISCRIMINATION: THROW OUT the rascals and the stooges and KEEP those incumbents who have integrity and commitment to reform, governmental contraint and the rule of law.

“Short of anarchy, the solution is DISCRIMINATION: THROW OUT the rascals and the stooges and KEEP those incumbents who have integrity and commitment to reform, governmental contraint and the rule of law.”

And who might they be? They are all whores to the special interest money that gets them re-elected.

“A debate over ideology, with clear and honest distinctions, is exactly what is needed…and should be voted on.”

If that’s the case (and I’m not sure I entirely disagree), then the Republicans should have nominated a candidate who actually stands for anything. Additionally, I don’t really see Jerry Brown as a standard bearer for the doctrinaire liberalism of people like Willie Brown and Don Perata; he’s always been somewhat of a Democratic thorn in the side of people like that (he was even the first person to bring up the fact that Bill & Hillary Clinton were a couple of crooks, way back in April of 1992). If this were a straight up race between a doctrinaire liberal like Gavin Newsom, John Garamendi, or Jackie Speier on one side, and a doctrinaire conservative like Tom McClintock, Richard Mountjoy, or Bill Simon on the other, then I would definitely be voting Republican. But that’s not the race we’ve been given, and I’m not going to cast my vote as if it were. Meg Whitman stands for absolutely nothing, ergo she can muddle through without my vote, “Republican” label or not.

Which candidate is more likely cut the bureaucracy that is killing our state? Which candidate is more likely to fire people? Which candidate is more likely to be in the pocket of unions?

Most of all, which one is more likely to take us a little closer (admittedly not much) to individual responsibility, freedom and rule of law, and move us away from the collective? Maybe I’m missing something, but given our choices I think the answer is obvious.

I realize you’re implying that the answer is Whitman, but I frankly don’t see much evidence for the veracity of that implication. Whitman isn’t the kind of Republican I think of when I think of “freedom.” She’s more the kind of Republican I think of when I think of “police state,” or “plutocracy.”

> She’s more the kind of Republican I think of when I think of “police state,” or “plutocracy.”

“Police state”? I would more trust Meg Whitman not to snoop throught government tax files than I would B. Obama or Jerry Brown. If you want government snoops looking over your shoulder to see what kind of light bulb you are using or how many flushes you are using to flush a turd, Jerry Brown is your guy.

“Plutocracy”? George Soros says he is not going to support Democrat candidates in this election because he sees an “avalanche”. Translation: plutocrat George Soros bought the last three elections for the Democrats.

Mac Tully and David Butler are the scums of the earth for stories they report and endorse. Fire Mac Tully and Butler and the Mercury staffs except for Sal Pizaro. Then the paper will have more interesting stories like how Downtown SJ is doing after all the investments made there.

Speaking of Jerry Brown, I heard that he disclosed that he is the tragic victim of a rare, exotic disease virtually unknown to medical science:

“I have the Police Chiefs in my back pock.”

GASP! The dreaded dorsal constabulary smallpox!!

I consulted with a physician and his medical advice for Governor Moonbeam:

“Take two medflies with a glass of malathion and call me in the morning.”

We as a community need to come together to fight this potential scourge and head off the predictable scapegoating of vulnerable groups who inevitably become associated with this problem by ignorant right wing kooks.

I suggest that we all wear a ribbon on our lapels to show our solidarity with those vulnerable groups:

> Only by coming together as a community and voting the *opposite* of the above Dick Cheney and Texas oil CEO’s recommendations can we hope to preserve all that’s special and wonderful about California.

So, tell us, Novice: what do you put in the gas tank of your Prius to make it go?

Did you know, Novice, (rhetorical question; of course he didn’t know), that oil companies pay two dollars of taxes for every dollar of profit they make?

How much in taxes do whales pay?

Answer: ZERO!!

In fact, whales are tax sponges because we have to pay government employees (The Coast Guard) to drag their smelly, rotting carcasses off of our pristine beaches and tow them out to sea.

And by the way, Novice, you’re not the only person on the planet who wants to drive a Prius.

A billion people in China would love to drive Prisues. A billion people in India would love to drive Priuses.

It’s going to take a lot of sperm whale oil to provide fuel for all of those gas-guzzling Priuses driven by little brown and yellow people.

Or, do you think, selfishly, that little brown and yellow people shouldn’t be allowed to drive Priuses?

I would say that Texas oil companies are providing a valuable service to humanity by allowing Chinese and Indian consumers to drive cars JUST LIKE YOU DRIVE, and by SAVING SPERM WHALES by allowing people to obtain the fuel to drive their Priuses from a vast, ecologically benign and RENEWABLE fuel source: OIL!

“. . . . For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS [American Physical Society] Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.”

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist”
. . . .

It is our responsibility to be conscientious stewards of our natural resources. Conservation is key to our children’s future.

But to claim that the “global climate disruption science is settled” is to buy into the culture of lies and deception uncovered last spring. So-called scientists have prostituted themselves at the altar of government money. It is shameful.

You do realize that Greenland was named at a time when it had thriving grapevines in the Middle Ages, right? Its snow covered landscape is a recent (geologically speaking) phenomenon. Climate change is not a new thing, and it will still be occurring long after mankind is but a dim geologic memory. It is arrogant of us to assume that we can stop it. But it is incumbent upon us to care.

Climate change legislation is killing jobs. Do you prefer food stamps or paychecks?

Hard to believe you really believe your simplistic analysis of our impact on the climate and environment. You say “we can’t stop climate change.” We can impact the changes that occur by how much poison we allow in our air and water, etc.
The nonsense about climate change legislation killing jobs is simply toeing the corporate line and is a non-response to this growing problem.
Food stamps or paychecks?? Those are hardly the only choices. Green jobs do and will employ many. I prefer clean air and water and a paycheck and I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive.

> Thanks very much but I prefer to get my facts from reputable and independent voices like Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, Van Jones, and the NY Times editorial board.

Oh! Van Jones!

Right.

Wikipedia: Van Jones

Jones’ sister said that as a child he was “the stereotypical geek—he just kind of lived up in his head a lot.”

He has described his own childhood behavior as “bookish and bizarre.”

Jones was a young fan of John and Bobby Kennedy, and would pin photographs of them to a bulletin board in his room in the specially delineated “Kennedy Section”. He used to imagine his Star Wars action figures were politicians: Luke Skywalker was John, Han Solo was Bobby, and Lando Calrissian was Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jones received his B.S. in communications and political science from the University of Tennessee at Martin (UT Martin).

After graduating from UT Martin, Jones left his home state to attend Yale Law School.

In 1992, while still a law student at Yale, Jones participated as a volunteer legal monitor for a protest of the Rodney King verdict in San Francisco. He and many other participants in the protest were arrested. The district attorney later dropped the charges against Jones. The arrested protesters, including Jones, won a small legal settlement. Jones later said that “the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization.” In October 2005 Jones said he was “a rowdy nationalist” before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.

In 1993, Jones earned his Juris Doctor and moved to San Francisco, California.

He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), where Jones actively began protesting police brutality. STORM was a socialist group whose official Points of Unity “upheld revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism,” and which built connections with other organizations to organize protests, especially against wars and police violence.

By 2005, Jones had begun promoting eco-capitalism and environmental justice.

In September 2007, Jones attended the Clinton Global Initiative and announced his plans to launch Green For All, a new national NGO dedicated to creating green pathways out of poverty in America.

There’s been a lot of buzz about the lack of enthusiasm among Democrat voters for the upcoming election. There is no reason for Democrats NOT to be motivated to show up at the polls. They just have to focus on the issues important to them.

2010 Election Democrat Enthusiasm Generator

Talking points to energize the Democrat base and get them to surge to the polls.

1. We have got to keep Neanderthal generals from addressing Senator Boxer as “Ma’am”.

2. If we don’t turn out in massive numbers, George Bush will have won.

3. Jerr-EEE! Jerr-EEE! Jerr-EEE!

4. If the Republicans win, gays won’t be allowed to marry!

5. If the Republicans win, straights living together will be forced to marry!

6. If the Republicans win, Americans will take jobs from Mexican immigrants!

7. If the Republicans win, global warming will make California uninhabitable and we’ll be forced to move to Utah or Texas.

8. If the Republicans win, giant soft drink corporations will put coke machines in school cafeteries.